> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
-1
No one has been able to explain how this change improves readability, it just
seems like it’s supposed to be self evident. I would argue that it makes the
generic definitions less readable by separating declarations and their relevant
where clauses. At best this change just moves the already unreadable mass of
text elsewhere, where it’s still unreadable. Furthermore, it trades this
supposed readability of generic parameters for decreased readability of the
actual function signature, since that signature’s now buried between the
generic definitions and the where clauses. This is especially bad when
declaring a single generic type that can easily fit on a single line, such as:
func something<T: Decodable where T == T.DecodedType>(with something: T) ->
String
turns into this, which is less readable to me, as it hides important
information between the generic information:
func something<T: Decodable>(with something: T) -> String where T ==
T.DecodedType
Also, this proposal doesn’t explain how the definitions for generic types would
change. Using the proposed grammar would be even worse on types. From:
final class NetworkOperation<T: Decodable where T == T.DecodedType>:
Operation,… {
to:
final class NetworkOperation<T: Decodable>: Operation,… where T ==
T.DecodedType {
The additional conformances types can have make this an especially bad use case
for this proposal.
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change
> to Swift?
It can be a problem, but I don’t see how this proposal fixes it. Appropriate
code styling, whether manual or provided by an IDE, could provide much better
readability than this proposal ever could.
> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
Changes proposed for “readability” need to be closely scrutinized, as one
programmer’s readable and another’s Perl. I don’t think this proposal meets the
high standard this list has tried to set for things to the language.
> * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature,
> how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
Java and C++’s generics, which are rather different. And despite what they may
have intended, I don’t think generics in either language are used as much as in
Swift.
> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
> reading, or an in-depth study?
Read the proposal, the thread thus far, and considered my response.
Jon
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
